• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Is My God Wrong?

FluffyNinja said:
But Pascal wasn't talking about all of the other possible Gods now was he?
This is an "all things being equal " approach. You, like many who have attempted to invalidate the Pascal matrix must introduce extraneous variables in order to do so.
Click to expand...

They are not extraneous variables. Like I said, the only way Pascal's Wager is valid is if you make the assumption that there is only one possible religion. There are many more than just one.

FluffyNinja said:
Let me see if I can put this simply, so that even a Physics Major from New York could comprehend it:

There are two possible variables: A = The Christian God does Exist
or
B = The Christian God does not Exist
with me so far? okay, phase two.........
Click to expand...

And that's the invalid assumption, that there is only the Christian God or no God, rendering the rest of your point moot...
 
MrFungus420 said:
They are not extraneous variables. Like I said, the only way Pascal's Wager is valid is if you make the assumption that there is only one possible religion. There are many more than just one.



And that's the invalid assumption, that there is only the Christian God or no God, rendering the rest of your point moot...
Click to expand...
Dude, you're missing the ENTIRE point. You could apply Pascal's Wager to each God individually and you come up with exactly the same outcomes. The point is not really wagering FOR God (the Christian God in this one particular application) it is the FACT that the only way to produce a BAD OUTCOME is wagering AGAINST God. What part of this are you not comprehending?

(Be at peace; you can still wager AGAINST God or pick another god and have the possibility of a GOOD outcome.)

If Islam is right, then wagering in favour of Christianity or Judaism, or against God are losing propositions. If Christianity is right, then wagering in favour of Islam or Judaism, or against God are losing propositions. If Judaism is right, then wagering in favour of Islam or Christianity, or against God are losing propositions.
Click to expand...
By the way, Christians and Jews believe in the SAME God; we just have a little disagreement about who Christ was.
 
Last edited:
When people are attracted to religion for the good that it does, they are doing a good thing, even if the religion is not totally true.
When people use religion to further their own selfish motives, then they are wrong, no matter how true or good the religion might be.
Some of us need answers to the unanswerable, and it really doesn't matter where we get the answers, as long as it makes us happy, or at least less apprehensive about the unknown.
It is not a bad thing to let people believe what they will, as long as they keep it to themselves and do not try to force their beliefs on others.
There are aspects of religion that are bad, even evil, but it is not God that made it evil, it is man that has taken what should be good, and perverted it.
I am not afraid to say "I don't know" because that is the only honest answer that I can give. I can also say that it isn't required to know everything, as some things are just worth believing.
Live and let live.....
 
They are not extraneous variables. Like I said, the only way Pascal's Wager is valid is if you make the assumption that there is only one possible religion. There are many more than just one.
Click to expand...

They certainly are extraneous. Not only would you have to introduce the infinite # of other gods, you'd have to ASSUME that they'd all be "VENGEFUL" and produce a bad outcome for you. I call this a hypothetical, extraneous variable. Pascal simply wanted to express the outcomes as they applied to THIS ONE PARTICULAR GOD. (all things being equal, of course)
 
UtahBill said:
When people are attracted to religion for the good that it does, they are doing a good thing, even if the religion is not totally true.
When people use religion to further their own selfish motives, then they are wrong, no matter how true or good the religion might be.
Some of us need answers to the unanswerable, and it really doesn't matter where we get the answers, as long as it makes us happy, or at least less apprehensive about the unknown.
It is not a bad thing to let people believe what they will, as long as they keep it to themselves and do not try to force their beliefs on others.
There are aspects of religion that are bad, even evil, but it is not God that made it evil, it is man that has taken what should be good, and perverted it.
I am not afraid to say "I don't know" because that is the only honest answer that I can give. I can also say that it isn't required to know everything, as some things are just worth believing.
Live and let live.....
Click to expand...

Finally, someone with a COMMON SENSE approach. Excellent statement! If everyone lived by these standards, it would be a much better world.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Finally, someone with a COMMON SENSE approach. Excellent statement! If everyone lived by these standards, it would be a much better world.
Click to expand...
It is my opinion that somewhere in our past, the concept of common sense has ceased to become common. Probably a good question for a new thread?
 
FluffyNinja said:
Dude, you're missing the ENTIRE point. You could apply Pascal's Wager to each God individually and you come up with exactly the same outcomes. The point is not really wagering FOR God (the Christian God in this one particular application) it is the FACT that the only way to produce a BAD OUTCOME is wagering AGAINST God. What part of this are you not comprehending?

(Be at peace; you can still wager AGAINST God or pick another god and have the possibility of a GOOD outcome.)

By the way, Christians and Jews believe in the SAME God; we just have a little disagreement about who Christ was.
Click to expand...

Untrue. There are an infinite amount of potential Gods that would reward atheism. Applying Pascal's Wager to them would result in a win for the atheist, would it not? What is the point of Pascal's Wager if you only apply it to one God?

Not only that, the premise that you lose nothing by wagering "with" God is untrue. In believing in God, you sacrifice a good amount of time, energy, and rationality in order to worship/believe in him, while the atheist loses nothing from his disbelief. No, Pascal's Wager is inherently flawed, stop defending it.
 
Engimo said:
Untrue. There are an infinite amount of potential Gods that would reward atheism. Applying Pascal's Wager to them would result in a win for the atheist, would it not? What is the point of Pascal's Wager if you only apply it to one God?

Not only that, the premise that you lose nothing by wagering "with" God is untrue. In believing in God, you sacrifice a good amount of time, energy, and rationality in order to worship/believe in him, while the atheist loses nothing from his disbelief. No, Pascal's Wager is inherently flawed, stop defending it.
Click to expand...

I thought atheism was non-belief in Gods? What God would reward a follower who doesn't believe in him/her (and would you really be considered a "follower?"). This kind of goes against the whole idea of "godism" doesn't it? Perhaps you can explain.

There are an infinite amount of potential Gods that would reward atheism.
Click to expand...

Also, what are "potential" Gods?
 
NON MONOTHEISM...polytheistic religions dont clearly state that if you dont believe in their beilfs you will burn in the underworld (an example in greek polytheism).
 
I thought atheism was non-belief in Gods? What God would reward a follower who doesn't believe in him/her (and would you really be considered a "follower?"). This kind of goes against the whole idea of "godism" doesn't it? Perhaps you can explain.
Click to expand...


there could easily be a god that doesn't give ****, that is beyond all the petty worshipping etc...atheism would certainly not face this god's wrath.
 
nkgupta80 said:
there could easily be a god that doesn't give ****, that is beyond all the petty worshipping etc...atheism would certainly not face this god's wrath.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm missing something here? I thought that one of the primary characteristics of being a "god" is actually being identified as a "supreme being" and being "worshipped" by followers (those who are inferior). One could say that a "supreme being" whom is neither acknowledged nor worshipped and who doesn't care either way is pretty much a non-entity and, therefore doesn't even apply to this argument. Could this "potential supreme being" to which you refer, really be considered a "god?" Like I said in an earlier post, what you're suggesting kind of goes against the whole idea behind "godism." I think you guys are reeeeaaallly stretching it here!:roll:
 
FluffyNinja said:
Perhaps I'm missing something here? I thought that one of the primary characteristics of being a "god" is actually being identified as a "supreme being" and being "worshipped" by followers (those who are inferior). One could say that a "supreme being" whom is neither acknowledged nor worshipped and who doesn't care either way is pretty much a non-entity and, therefore doesn't even apply to this argument. Could this "potential supreme being" to which you refer, really be considered a "god?" Like I said in an earlier post, what you're suggesting kind of goes against the whole idea behind "godism." I think you guys are reeeeaaallly stretching it here!:roll:
Click to expand...

Why? Is it any more outrageous than to think that something powerful enough to create everything would honestly be concerned with the actions of one person? That it would be so insecure that it would require the worship of the insignificant things that it created? That it would be so insecure as to feel the need to create things just to worship it?

Why would a diety require the recognition of that which it created? Let's assume for the moment that there actually is a diety, that created everything, but one that no human has ever put a name to, or recognized in any way, shape or form. How would that affect it's existence? If nobody recognized it, that wouldn't change it's existence, nor would that change it's godhood.
 
MrFungus420 said:
Why? Is it any more outrageous than to think that something powerful enough to create everything would honestly be concerned with the actions of one person? That it would be so insecure that it would require the worship of the insignificant things that it created? That it would be so insecure as to feel the need to create things just to worship it?

Why would a diety require the recognition of that which it created? Let's assume for the moment that there actually is a diety, that created everything, but one that no human has ever put a name to, or recognized in any way, shape or form. How would that affect it's existence? If nobody recognized it, that wouldn't change it's existence, nor would that change it's godhood.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, are "god" and "supreme being" synonymous? Because my whole point is that if you give a "supreme being" the title of "god" it implies that he/she/it has worshippers/followers. At least in the "human" understanding of what a "god" is. And, by the way, the title of this thread addresses "God," does it not?
 
FluffyNinja said:
In your opinion, are "god" and "supreme being" synonymous? Because my whole point is that if you give a "supreme being" the title of "god" it implies that he/she/it has worshippers/followers. At least in the "human" understanding of what a "god" is. And, by the way, the title of this thread addresses "God," does it not?
Click to expand...


see but that isn't the definition of god in every religion. Hinduism sees god as a super-conscious creator force, something beyond comprehension. So.... it holds the characteristics of a supreme, all powerful being, but it isn't something that is restricted to human feelings and emotions, including the idea of being worshipped. Worship in hinduism is considered to be worship for yourself and making yourself a more peaceful person.

this applies to many eastern philosophies and smaller philosophies.
 
plus, objectively speaking, wouldn't an all powerful being be beyond this idea of being worshipped?
 
FluffyNinja said:
In your opinion, are "god" and "supreme being" synonymous?
Click to expand...

I think that it's irrelevent, but for the most part I do.

FluffyNinja said:
Because my whole point is that if you give a "supreme being" the title of "god" it implies that he/she/it has worshippers/followers. At least in the "human" understanding of what a "god" is. And, by the way, the title of this thread addresses "God," does it not?
Click to expand...

That which humans have termed gods seem to have a couple points in common, being supernatural, and having to do with creation (be it the creation of everything as in monotheistic religions, or the creation/control over certain aspects of existence as in the polytheistic religions). It is those attributes that make them objects of our worship.

If, however, there is a being of some sort that is responsible for the creation of everything, then I would say that being is a god, whether or not it is worshipped.
 
i believe in tranquility said:
define god fungus.
Click to expand...

i believe that statement there is the problem with all these debates. There are too possible definitions of god, none more provable or disprovable than the other.
 
i believe in tranquility said:
define god fungus.
Click to expand...

A supernatural being responsible for creation, either in whole or in part.

That would be a quick definition without making any assumptions about actual existence.
 
tecoyah said:
This question is primarily for the Christian Sects, as they seem to be the most Adamant about this heaven and hell, lost soul belief. What is it that makes one version of God more acceptable than another...to the point that one is judged unworthy of a cush afterlife?
I am seriously confused by this, as even when I was Christian, I never saw the point of it.
Click to expand...

I think an answer might be that , as you judge others how then do you judge yourself .If by condemning others to death when the end comes have you condemned yourself to death , if you lie so that you can live ,can you be sure others didn't lie too,and if so are you really in " heaven " and are you really among " angles " .I can see how that can be hard to understand if your ,2 YEARS OLD ,LOL.

:roll:
 
nkgupta80 said:
plus, objectively speaking, wouldn't an all powerful being be beyond this idea of being worshipped?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I wouldn't even pretend to know what an "all powerful being" would consider acceptable, would you? You claim (using Hinuism as an example) that God is a force beyond human understanding and would be "above" worship, yet you seem to make claims that indicate that YOU understand what an "all powerful being" wants or needs. This line of thinking seems paradoxical to me. Perhaps you could elaborate.:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom